The Supreme Court has voted to restrict “abstract” software patents

You take an idea that’s not all that original and implement it on a computer. For that, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday, you don’t deserve a patent. Seeking to do its part to trim the proliferation of software patents, the high court nevertheless tread carefully to avoid ensnaring too many legitimate patents along the way. The case had attracted legions of lawyers on both sides to the high court’s chamber in March, as well as hundreds of pages of briefs from the likes of Google, Microsoft and IBM. Many had urged a solution similar to what the justices sought to devise Thursday: a reduction in flimsy patents without affecting the deserving ones. The specific patent in question uses a computer to safeguard complex financial transactions, largely among banks. The program is intended to reduce the risk that one party can’t hold up its end of the deal.

The Supreme Court unanimously declared that “abstract” software patents are no longer legally kosher. “Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas. For instance, so-called patent trolls often sue tech companies, claiming that they own massively popular (and obvious) software features. One software patent claims to own the idea of “a method for providing personalized nutrition information.” Better Food Choices LLC sued Google, Apple, Amazon, Weight Watchers, and others alleging the they had violated the holders’ ownership of this rather broad feature. “Although its impact cannot be fully determined right now, we believe there is strong language in the decision that will be very useful to those faced with the worst patents (which are often asserted by patent trolls),” Vera Ranieri, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, writes to VentureBeat. “We hope that lower courts will use this case to quickly invalidate patent claims that do nothing more than claim abstract ideas in connection with generic computer components. Ranieri gave us another example of the kinds of patents that would likely be invalidated. The already invalidated Patent 8069073 claims ownership over software that provides “connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services” that end up in a financial transaction. In other words, connecting users to purchases.